Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/content/73/13971573/html/bb/common.php on line 88[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 821: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4209: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4211: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4212: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4213: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:88)hiphop-elements.com • View topic - Equality and Inequality under law

well... this mainly applies to the US and maybe Australia, but thats not even the case. It's easy to point to the flaws of the judical system and America has gone beyond reason with some of the laws implemented, but that does not mean the whole system needs changing. And if all the injustices are so plain and simple why is the whole world struggling, as mentioned in the film? well maybe it's because the answer to the question of equality under law will never be one dimensional, and that alone makes it invalid.

It's complicated and the film tried to suggest that some ethnic groups are more priviliged then others, and that may be true im not even gonna go there, but let's take this to a different ground. Let's say I am a murderer, am I treated equally under law? and even if the answer is "yes" then equally to whom? fellow murderers? That's not equal i've just been classified to a group (what a shame, I always thought we are all individuals) and I dont know much about life but I bet a murderers' bunch are not the type of guys you wanna be around when you talk about exercising your rights. Well law gives me the right to defend myself in court... sure... but that doesn't mean anything does it, I mean I'm a murderer, I killed people, I might as well skip the show and go do the 25 to life. But let's turn it around and say I go free even though i committed the crime. Am I equally treated under law then? I mean all the other murderes fried on the old sparky, according to law I should be one of them, then I would be treated equally, but since I walked outta there I guess I'm a victim of system's inequality.?? This is of course very simplistic, but I hope it shows that the answer is complicated.

Boo this dude. You know, at first I thought he was an American trying to do a British accent. I guess he's just Australian? Regardless, dude is has no idea what it is he's talking about.

First of all, when you're making an argument, you need to present counterarguments that people actually make, rather than summarizing positions with loaded and misleading terms like "master plan" and "desired outcome."

I mean on taxes, dude talks about the fact that Western countries have different rates of taxation for different income groups as if its sole purpose were to soak the rich. But a progressive income tax scheme is not necessarily about producing some kind of "desirable outcome" or any kind of sinister "master plan." The fact is that if you were to speak with an economist about the reasoning behind it, they'd probably tell you that a flat income tax rate, one where all people of all incomes are taxed at an equal rate, would have an unequal effect across income groups. This is because poor and middle income people save and invest a smaller portion of their income than do wealthier folks. That's also why consumption taxes like the sales tax are considered regressive. And really, that's why serious people who support flat or fair tax schemes also tend to include exemptions and rebates for poor people.

In any case, it's kind of a stupid point if you know how taxes actually work. I mean, let's take a simple example and look at Obama's proposed tax increase. If he wants to raise the tax rate from 36 to 39 percent for those making over 250k, it doesn't mean that someone making 260k would be paying 3 percent more for every dollar of income. The tax increase would only affect the 10k that's above the 250k mark. Or if you make 50k a year, the first 20k of your income is taxed at the same rate as my 20k.

So yeah, I think you can argue the merits of the progressive income tax. You can say that maybe it discourages wealth. (You'd be full of shit.) But to argue that it's wrong because it treats people differently under the law is just weak. Furthermore, it's just not accurate.

With respect to capital gains and corporate taxes and what not, it's a lot trickier. I'd say there's a lot of bullshit in there--one of the things I really don't like about my party, the Democratic Party, for example, is the fact that most of our representatives are really capitulating to the corn lobby. That said, I don't disagree with the basic notion that the government should, on occasion, distort the market by using the tax code. Because, as good as you might think the market is, there are certain things that are in our collective interest that are not in the interest of individual actors. I mean, I'd just love to hear how you "individualists" would plan on reducing CO2 emissions. Just love it!

As far as redistribution of wealth. Here's a little nugget of wisdom they didn't teach him in school: all government functions redistribute wealth. All functions, even in a state that only offers the most basic of services (roads, police, courts and military) you're taking money from one group of people (the tax payers) and paying it to another (civil servants and folks with government contracts). And when you take into account the fact that some areas and regions have a bigger tax-base than others, you'll find that (gasp) wealthier regions subsidize poorer ones.

And that bit about affirmative action was pathetic. First off, he really shows why people should avoid argument by analogy. Right out the gate, he establishes a false equivalence. Affirmative action, even when it was to the point of imposing quotas, is just not comparable to the fact that women and minorities were held back as a matter of legally accepted custom and government policy for hundreds of years. And then he talks about the turnover of players, as if past discrimination has no effect on the present. It's not only ignorant, but breathtakingly disrespectful. And I suppose that you could argue that the principle is the same--they both discriminate--but you'd be wrong.

I mean, think about how affirmative action came about in this country. During the New Deal and especially during the War, minority groups unionized and worked against our country's policy of giving out contracts to companies that openly discriminated against non-whites. Public money, money collected from everyone's taxes, was being used to fund companies that formally discriminated against non-whites. And some of that public money was also used to try to crush the activities of those unions. Affirmative action was the result of that struggle. And it was put in place because, left to its own devices, the market (and the state) would irrationally favor one group of people over another.

To be sure, affirmative action has some really stupid applications--especially if you want to get into rules promoting minority owned business. And right now, I think that the case for race and especially gender based affirmative action is a lot weaker. The courts recognize this and currently will only find it legal when there's no hard quota and when the aim of the program is for something like "promoting diversity" or whatever. I personally, don't like it. I think it demeans minority achievement, especially black achievement. (Clarence Thomas has wrote about this.) And more to the point, if your goal is promoting real diversity and opportunity, then affirmative action programs should be class-based.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum